The fire officer probably knows nothing about wireless alarms, even less about batteries and, most importantly, he is not paying for the cost of calling out an engineer every time a low battery warning is given. Fortunately, he was 'not explicit' in his recommendations so I would suggest that ' a proper system of maintenance for fire detectors' should be based on the recommendations of the actual equipment's manufacturer.
Well actually do you know what ? I think you will probably find the Fire Officer DOES know ' a little ' about wireless alarms and their trappings actually owing to the fact s/he hasn't been explicit in the notice issued.
I think the fire officer is right in this instance. it isn't acceptable to wait for all devices to get low battery warnings before action is taken.
It is up to the responsible person, is it not, to come back to the fire officer and say "The manufacturer recommends the battery is replaced at a maximum of three months after the low battery warning is displayed would you be happy if I waited that long to see if any other low batter warning lights show so I can replace them at the sametime Mr Fire Officer?"
I thought thats why the Government brought out that magical piece of legislation called the Regulatory Refiorm (Fire Safety) Order 2005 so that the punters had choices how to comply? Wasn't it because the Fire Precautions Act 1971 was just too prescriptive and everyone really hated it so much.
Its always the 'bad old nasty jack booted non understanding un sympathetic fire officer costing us money again' scenario isn't it. Nothing is mentioned of this ficticious figure after a fire where the responsible person has lost his or her business or worse still has put someone at serious risk.
So if the maintenance costs are getting that prohibitive why does the RP not cut their losses and look at alternatives ?
Can I make a sensible suggestion please? Be reasonable with the fire officer and they will be reasonable with you. How on earth can they know how much each and every fire alarm contractor charges for maintenance?.
Communicate with the fire officer "Mr Fire Officer the costs of maintenance are too steep to do what you suggest what are my oiptions? Can you give me further advice?" Don't make unhelpful comments you will find they are more than willing to help so long as it makes the premises safer and compliant.
Clevelandfire says that because the fire officer knows, at least 'a little' about wireless fire alarm systems and their batteries, that is why the enforcement notice issued is vague. I believe it is vague precisely because he doesn't know enough.
The question, for me, is if the enforcement notice was issued before the guy was given an opportunity to prove that his method of dealing with the low-battery warnings was acceptable practice by obtaining supporting evidence from 'expert' sources.
Obviously, the fire officer doesn't know the maintenance costs of every fire alarm company in his region (I don't even think it would be important to know this) but he should understand that, say, a number of seperate visits to change batteries would be more expensive than one every few weeks.
Whilst not saying it is applicable in this case (none of us have all the facts), the 'bad old nasty jack booted non understanding un sympathetic fire officer' must exist because so many people have met him.
Of course, Mr Fire Officer is a brave old soul, along with the Mr Policeman, Ms Nurse, Mrs Sailor, Mr Soldier, Miss RAF Pilot, Mr Coastguard, Ms Lifeboatman etc etc.
Of course Mr Fire Officer does an important job that helps to make the world go around smoothly. But so does, well, virtually everybody, actually.
The business owners problems are just as vaild as anyone else's.
I agree that working together will get the most satisfactory result but anybody with any power has to be sure to use it wisely (I'm not saying that isn't so in this particular case because I don't know all the facts or, of course, of fire officers in particular - it's just a general observation)
